Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 3 , 2015.

In t he 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 01107

- CR

HENRY JAMES GRADNEY II , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. 1251706

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Henr y James Gradney II appeals the trial court ’ s judgment revoking his community supervision. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion because the evidence is insufficient to prove that he committed an offense against the laws of the State of Texas. We affirm.I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND
O n November 15, 2010 , a ppellant pleaded guilty to driving w hile i ntoxicate d

— third offender , a third

- degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code § § 49.04 (a), 49. 09 (b) ( West 2011 ). O n January 4, 2011 , t he trial court sentenced appellant to four years’ confinement , probated for four years. Among the condition s of his community supervision was that appellant not commit an y offense against the laws of the State of T exas.
On Octo ber 4, 2013, the State filed a m otion to r evoke c ommunity

s upervision, alleging two separate thefts committed by appellant.

The trial court held a revocation hearing on November 21, 2013. The trial

c ourt found that the first theft alleg ation in the motion was not true. However, the court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the second theft allegation in the motion was true. T he trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and sentenced him to two years ’ confinement

. II. A NALYSIS In a single issue , appellant complains the trial court abused its discretion because the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he c ommitted the offense of theft. See Tex. Penal Code § 31.03 (West 2011). In its motion, the State all eged that appellant committed two separate thefts while on community supervision. The trial cou rt found the first allegation “ n ot
t rue

. ” The court found that the following allegation was “ true ” : On or about October 2, 2013, in Harris County, Texas, the Defendant Henry James Gradney II, hereafter styled the Defendant did and there unlawfully appropriate, by acquiring and otherwise exercising control over property, namely, one motor vehicle owned by Robert Trammel, hereafter styled the Complainant, of the value of over one t housand five hundred dollars, with the intent to deprive t he Complainant of the

2property.
During the revocation hearing , Houston Police Officer Zielonka testified that on October 2, 2013 , while on proactive patrol, he observed appellant in the vicinity of 2710 Wayne Street, Houston, Harris County, Texas , a high

- crime area

. Zielonka testified that at th e time he observed appellant, appellant appeared to be in the process of “ stripping ” a motor vehicle . Zielonka further testified that th e vehicle had been reported stolen and that Robert Trammel was the registered

owner. Appellant complains that there is no evidence in the record to prove to who m the vehicle was registered. In addition, appellant asserts that the record is devoid of evi dence showing that appellant’s possession of the vehicle was without the effective consent of the owner. We review an order revoking commu nity supervision under an abuse

- of

discretion

- standard. Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In conducting this review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order. Greer v. State , 999 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). The trial court is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and determines if the allegations in the motion are sufficiently demonstrated. Id

. The State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his probation. Id

. The preponderance

- of

- the

- evidence sta ndard is met when the greater weight of the credible evidence before the trial court supports a reasonable belief that a condition of community supervision has been violated. Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at 764.

A trial court does not abuse its discretion in revok ing probation if there is one sufficient ground for revocation. See Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“We have long held that ‘ one sufficient ground for
3revocation would support t he trial court's order revoking’ community supervi sion. ”) ; Joseph v. State , 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex. App.

— Housto n [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“ A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. ”)

. Here, the preponderance of the direct and circumstantial evidence , along with reasonable inferences , is sufficient to establish that appellant committed a violation of the conditions of his probation. The record establishes that Zielonka observed a motor vehicle (missing the motor) which appeared to be in the process of bei ng “stripped” by appellant. T he vehicle w as missing the engine, hood, doors, and tires

. Zielonka testified that the vehicle was confirmed to be reported stolen, and wa s registered to Robert Trammel

— the name of the owner alleged in the motion to revok e probation

. Appellant offered no explanation for his possession of , and did not claim to own , the vehicle. It is reasonable to infer from this evidence that the owner of the vehicle was Robert Trammel, and that appellant’s possession was without Trammel ’s effective consent

. See Joseph , 3 S.W.3d at 641 (concluding that evidence at revocation hearing raised inference of guilt and was sufficient for trial court to conclude appellant committed theft offense). We overrule appellant’s sole issue.

III. C ONCLUSION
W e affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Marc W. Brown Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby , and Brown

. Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).

4